Attention: You are using an outdated browser, device or you do not have the latest version of JavaScript downloaded and so this website may not work as expected. Please download the latest software or switch device to avoid further issues.
| 13 May 2025 | |
| Written by Jennifer Zettler | |
| Club News |
Motion to adopt the 2024 IRC, discussion
- Opposed: Builder anecdotal comparison between MN (IRC) and WI resulted in $6,000-11,000 increase in cost. Concern that the energy savings payback not timely. There would be the requirement to relearn the code, creating amendments is complicated – doesn't make sense to amend the IRC to match what we have. Recommends to update the energy code.
- Opposed: UDC Council hasn't been meeting as required to keep UDC updated. IRC and exceptions is convoluted. UDCC needs to do the work of updating. Energy upgrades do not make sense in payback years and should focus on Commercial Code issues.
- Opposed: UDC update preferred, worked with IRC in other states and concerned about energy R-values, plumbing, electrical. In favor of 3rd party comparison of the IRC to UDC with identical plans to determine cost difference.
- Current studies may be available from Division of Industry Services or Dept. of Energy.
- Other members in favor of comparison studies.
- In favor: there is a cost increase either way, we're on 2009 energy, updates have safety and other improvements. Need to consider energy costs over time. Health impacts – improvements with IRC.
- Can adopt the IECC without adopting the IRC.
- Discussion is needed, the code is woefully behind. Can pull a lot of good out of the IRC. No evidence of cost prohibitive claims. Can't make a decision without the facts, need to do the research (agreement by other members).
- Oppose: Cost is important, WI has a lot of good practices, do our due diligence.
- Need the side-by-side comparison. Previously took the best of IRC (2014?). Recalls ICC offer to provide a comparison, lots of chapters – could benefit from analysis.
- In favor: IRC with WI-ism. Energy could adopt IECC and UDC. Not enough information to respond to the concerns. Would like all data and engagement of those who need to interact with this code. How to onramp education?
- Question if the energy code is dictated by the Federal Government more than the IRC/UDC? REScheck no longer supported for the version allowed in UDC. Need to work with the energy code. License reciprocity? WI in other states and vice versa. No desire to replace plumbing or electrical but need to update mechanical. UDCC can make WI-isms like the Commercial Building Code, Electrical Code, etc. Need to get some comparisons – timeline? Group is split 50/50, need to move forward.
- Request for perspective of those working in other states. Concern for IRC making decisions without representation.
- Insurance gives WI a 0 when rating vs. cost of insurance rates because UDC is not a national standard. CB gets a better rating because of ICC adoption. Contractors from MN working in WI would have an easier time with one code. Years ago, push from Fire Departments to have more fire-safe construction – reflected in IRC. MN contractors use timber strand floor joist vs. sawn lumber, positive change for FD.
- ICC will produce a document based on IRC with WI-isms. Michigan has this. IRC contains prescriptive requirements for ICF, metal framing, etc. that inspectors would currently need to request engineering analysis to accept.
- Tall wall in IRC is much better.
- 2nd vote for fire safety improvements, IRC more clear about this. References to wild/forest fire information in 2024. Staircase in IRC is safer.
- All states adopting IRC have different amendments, does not make it the same for those working in multiple states. Interested in how insurance ratings respond to this. What is lacking in UDC? Energy discussion, manufacturer's installation instructions, codes developed, wall bracing has become more difficult.
- HVAC overdue for update. Look to IRC for staff ideas, perspective. Hardly any prescriptive, too general. Minimum code is not a good system for energy / efficiency. Hydronics.
- MN adopted flame-spread, need actual ductwork – helps with indoor air quality.
- IRC is part of ICC – with a constant cycle to discuss and update. Gives critical thinkers and is consistent. Where does DIS get information for their ideas, ICC? Why try to invent for ourselves – missing the critical thinking engineering in IRC. Read through the prescriptive code and it often asks for engineering analysis. Would like guidance. Not a lot of engineers want to take small remodeling projects – some might take a new house. Engineering fees and time set projects back.
- IRC has loading requirements (40 psf?) UDC is silent. Insurance rating is credit for new construction, small dollar value.
- Structural engineering for wind bracing report for inspector required, based on IRC, when asked for UDC provided a sentence for the UDC to the report. Electrical has a spreadsheet for ours vs national with line-by line comparison – that would be helpful.
- Engineering might be required either way, usually go to the IRC.
- Energy payback – establish professional research based on how people qualify for mortgages. Who influences the ICC? Constant updates but pushed for by lobbyists. Statistics on number of fires in new or old homes and number of firefighter injuries in new vs old construction. Remodeling would need engineering if high end work. Need code minimum houses, affordable homes are needed.
- Look at cost increases direct from code change vs. systemic in society for rising cost of materials, labor/shortage.
- Costs are going up without code changes. Personal polls over 7 years +/- asked inspectors and contractors from across the state. Pro IRC increased over the years until peaking 2-3 years ago, more negative now.
- WI Builders Association supports UDC as base code. Not heard momentum to move away from the UDC. Only 1 option to look at for alternative codes. Recommend to look at different years of the IRC to research, especially energy. UDCC spent a lot of time on wall bracing working collaboratively. Any change is difficult to the field for consumers and practitioners.
- Statutory language of UDCC responsibilities?
- Energy paybacks don't makes sense [anecdotal example], new construction isn't affordable.
- Code doesn't pertain to additions or alterations. Lots of municipalities have adopted for these and accessory structures.
- Milwaukee addition, struggle is ongoing for the contractor to meet energy code for only the addition or also the existing, non-compliant house.
- Threshold of a certain dollar amount is typical before updating existing energy compliance. DATCP rules = more for consumer protection vs. code.
- SE WI adopts Uniform Building Code for pre-1980 with UDC elements. Why not include as an appendix in the UDC? No heat load calculations followed for the addition or opened cavities, etc.
- Madison, WI: bracing for a simple addition needs to analyze the whole house. Is HVAC in our purview?
- Yes, HVAC is in UDCC purview, have also made electrical and plumbing changes.
- Changes for Electrical and Plumbing needs to be worked out with respective councils.
- Changes over $1000 require legislative approval?
- NFPA 5000 is another code to look at
- Slipstream: projects funded by Dept. of Energy, one is for UDC related to current adoption 2021 IECC vs. UDC. Willing so share PNNL study, more reasonable paybacks than mentioned anectodical, 4 years +/-. Offered technical assistance.
- Recommendation to start collect and compare data.
- Start discussion with existing older IRC vs UDC comparison document to decide if IRC to be discussed further or focus on UDC.
- Concern on 2012 information but in favor of the comparison. Anything more current that is available.
- Had a 2009 comparison, need to do this process. Did not update this document.
- DSPS: in 2022, Division of Industry Services did a comparison
- Request information for homework: Slipstream presentation, ICC contact to see if ICC will provide comparison, DSPS document, MN document comparing cost of a house in MN/IRC vs WI/UDC in 2021. Tim O'Brian research.
- Next meeting Friday, May 23rd.
